ORDER
B.S. Patil, J.
1. Petitioner who has passed Bachelor of Engineering in Polymer Science and Technology claims to have been appointed on August 21, 1995 as a Graduate Engineer Trainee under the 2nd respondent. His services, as asserted by him, were continued from time to time. Petitioner further states that he was made to work as lecturer for Post-Graduate Diploma Courses in Plastic Engineering, Plastic Processing Technology. He was also attending other works like testing assignments, processing, technical service etc. In support of his claim for having rendered service under the second respondent, he has produced certain service certificates and has marked them as Annexure-A series apart from producing the extract of the attendance register as Annexure-B series. His grievance is that though several employees appointed along with him were continued in service his services were sought to be disturbed by discontinuing him which has made him to approach this Court. It is contended by the petitioner in the writ petition that though the work is available on permanent basis, the respondents have not made any recruitment to the post in which the petitioner is engaged. Since no attendance was given to the petitioner and his request for treating him on par with other regular employees for the purpose of pay and allowance was not considered, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his case for regularisation or in the alternative for recruitment by giving service weightage for the total number of service rendered by him and also by giving age relaxation. A direction is also sought against the respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioner or replace him by appointing another temporary employee.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition contends that the petitioner is entitled for regularisation of his service as he has continuously discharged his duties from 1995. He further submits that, the action of the respondents in refusing employment to him with effect from 2001 is arbitrary and unsustainable.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 taking me through the statement of objections filed principally contends that the petitioner is not entitled for any regularisation. His submission is that the petitioner was taken as a Graduate Engineering Trainee for 3 years with effect from August 21, 1995 and upon completion of the training period he was taken on casual basis during the year 1999. He submits that the attendance record of the petitioner shows that he attended the work only for few days from March 1999 till 2001. He further submits that the period during which he was under training from 1995 to 1998 for a period of 3 years cannot be reckoned as period of service rendered by him. At any rate, from May 1, 2001 onwards the petitioner is not in service is his submission. Denying the allegation that the petitioner was denied the attendance, respondent No. 3 has contended that the petitioner cannot claim a right for regularisation of his service as no work is available to be given to the petitioner in the institution. Reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the respondent on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi to contend that in public employment, absorption, regularisation of temporary and casual employees is impermissible. Such directions cannot be issued unless the recruitment itself was made regularly.
4. Upon careful consideration of the contentions urged and the materials placed on record, the only point that arises for consideration in this case is:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for regularisation in the post in which he is appointed or in the alternative whether he is entitled for being considered for recruitment with that weightage for the service rendered by him by extending the benefit of age relaxation?
5. It is borne out from the materials placed on record and the pleadings of the respective parties that the petitioner was appointed as a Graduate Engineer Trainee on August 21, 1995. After the completion of the training period, he was taken on casual basis and was assigned work under the respondents. There is no regular order of appointment appointing the petitioner on certain terms and conditions for any fixed period. It is not in dispute that the appointment was not a regular appointment. The petitioner is not in a position to show that he has been working since 1995 continuously, having been duly appointed for the post of Graduate Engineer.
6. An employee appointed on casual basis cannot claim regularisation in the post in which he is appointed. There is no assurance given to him by the management that his services would be regularised. However, the fact remains that the petitioner is made to work from 1995 onwards till 2001 in one capacity or the other under the respondents 2 and 3. Even assuming that the period of training from 1995 for a period of 3 years has to be excluded, it is seen, that his services are later on utilised from 1999 onwards in different capacities.
7. If an employee who is appointed on casual basis is continued definitely in that capacity and he is made to lose avenues of alternative appointment on account of the age bar, it is only appropriate that the employer who chooses to fill up the post on regular basis in due course, should give preference to the employee who has served on casual basis by giving him the requisite age relaxation provided he satisfies the other requirements. However, it is necessary to make it clear that no regularisation in the post can be claimed as of right by the petitioner only because he has worked under the employer for few years. Therefore, while the request made by the petitioner for a direction to regularise his services cannot be acceded to, it has to be observed that in case if respondents 2 and 3 proceed to make recruitment for the post in question either on temporary basis or on permanent basis, they shall provide an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the process of recruitment and the petitioner shall be entitled for age relaxation and preference in the matter of recruitment provided he satisfies the other legal requirements for the post in question.
8. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.